logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2016.05.27 2015나4881
소유권이전등기
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The reasons for the judgment with respect to this part of the basic facts are as follows: “E” of the second six pages is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the first instance except for “G”, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The gist of the plaintiff's assertion is that the non-party to the clan filed a lawsuit against the deceased F (hereinafter "the deceased") seeking implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on the ground of the cancellation of title trust on each of the real estate of this case and obtained a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the plaintiff, and the defendant who inherited each of the real estate of this case from the deceased F to the plaintiff who is a new trustee, is obliged to implement the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer on each of the real estate

3. Determination

A. In a case where real estate was transferred by transfer, the final transferee cannot directly request the first transferor to register the ownership transfer under his own name unless there is an agreement on the registration of intermediate omission. In order to exercise the first transferor’s right to claim the ownership transfer directly on the ground of an agreement on the registration of intermediate omission, the final transferee is required to have an agreement on the omission of intermediate registration between the first transferor and the last transferee, in addition to the agreement between the first transferor and the last transferee on the registration of intermediate omission.

Therefore, although the final transferee received the claim for ownership transfer registration from the intermediate, the final transferee received the claim.

Even if the first transferor does not consent to the transfer, the final transferee cannot claim the first transferor to implement the transfer registration procedure on the ground of the transfer of claims.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da485 delivered on May 16, 1997, etc.). B.

The plaintiff is not based on the direct legal relationship with the defendants, but is between the non-party clan and the plaintiff.

arrow